Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, R. v. Sparrow, R. v. Sioui
Welcome to the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, R v. Sparrow, R. v. Sioui, (1990) Wiki The following wiki outlines the roles that Indigenous History (pre-1945) played in the case of Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, R v. Sparrow, and the R. v. Sioui, (1990) court decisions. Click the court case for a link to the full ruling! Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia Overview The Tsilhqot’in First Nation was made up of six bands that lived in a remote valley in central BC. They lived in villages, managed the land for the foraging of roots and herbs, hunted, and trapped. The Tsilhqot’in set terms for the European traders who came onto their land. From the perspective of the Tsilhqot’in, the land was always theirs. Throughout most of Canada, treaties were created where Indigenous peoples gave up their land in exchange for promises made by the Government of Canada; however, in British Columbia, this did not happen. Beginning of Disputes In 1983, the provincial government of British Columbia granted Carrier Lumber Ltd a forest license to cut trees in part of the territory owned and occupied by the Tsilhqot’in who sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging on the land. The dispute led to a blockage of a bridge that the forest company was upgrading. Talks between the Ministry of Forests and the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government took place but reached an impasse over the Xeni Gwet’in claim to a right of first refusal to logging. In 1998, the original claim was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title on the behalf of all Tsilhqot’in people. Key Figures If there are important political figures in this case (eg. a Chief), please add some background information on the individual. Conclusion / Impact / Significance Please add the outcome of the case and the significance it had. R. v. Sparrow Overview The appellant, Ronald Edward Sparrow, was charged in 1984 under the Fisheries Act ''for fishing with a net that was longer than permitted by his Band's license. The question was whether the length restriction (of the net) was inconsistent with s. 35 (1) of the ''Constitution Act, 1982. Section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, ''1982 provides protection under the constitution for Aboriginal title, rights, and treaty rights. Sparrow defends himself on the basis that he was exercising his Aboriginal right to fish. Sparrow argues that the length restriction of the net is inconsistent with s. 35 (1) of the ''Constitution Act, ''1982. 'Ronald Edward Sparrow' Add a short bio of Ronald Sparrow here. 'Conclusion / Impact / Significance' Please add the outcome of the case and the significance it had. 'R. v. Sioui' 'Overview' The case in questions surrounds members of the Huron Band being charged for cutting down trees, and camping and making fires in a park. The issue concerning this case was whether the regulations they Huron Band were charged under applied, and whether the agreements made in the 18th century constituted a treaty that protected their rights to these activities. In ''R. v. Sioui, known as the Sioui Decision, Sioui won a unanimous decision at the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991. The ruling acknowledged that a 1760 document signed between British General James Murray and the Huron band, the Huron-British Treaty of 1760, is still valid as it was an international agreement entered into between sovereign nations. Konrad Sioui Add a bio of Konrad Sioui here. Possibly add other key figures in this landmark case. Conclusion / Impact / Significance Please add the outcome of the case and the significance it had. Latest activity Photos and videos are a great way to add visuals to your wiki. Add one below! Category:Browse